To Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and President Obama:
Grant Pardon, Reprieve, Manumission Of Sentence, Exoneration,
Letter of Declaration of Actual Innocence, and Emergency Disaster
Assistance Without Prejudice to John Kinsel, for Wrongful Arrest,
Malicious Prosecution, and Constitutional Violations Inflicted
John Kinsel is a gentleman and law-abiding lawful citizen of the United States.
On January 30, 1997, John Kinsel was arrested in Texas by
a bounty-hunter, on a false charge of a statutory crime
against his son's half-sister. In 1999, he was convicted and
sentenced to life imprisonment without parole at hard labor,
by a hung jury in Louisiana, in Jefferson Parish.
In a series of appeals which culminated in
the Louisiana Supreme Court denying relief
without even hearing the case (on March 28, 2002)
John Kinsel, an innocent man, ran out of appeals.
In May of 2005, the alleged "victim" - by then age
18, contacted the office of John Kinsel's attorney
from Colorado. She came to Louisiana, to recant
her original testimony in a 20-page statement which
refutes the arrest and conviction unequivocally and
clearly, and with perfect credibility. This sworn
statement was notarized by the Louisiana Court
Reporter who heard it on October 20, 2005.
This case, as can be said of so many other cases
in the USA today, is a case of an official attack
on the innocence of a child, perpetrated under the
guise of child protection which, in fact, is a
nonexistent motive and a shallow, hypocritical
pretense on the part of officials who twist the
truth with impunity, and with more skill than in
any other subculture or country in the world.
(The subculture to which I refer here is a prosecutorial
subculture of coy truth-twisting which railroads justice
with impunity in nearly every State of the USA. It is
described eloquently in the unpublished and published
copyrighted material which has been uncovered
by the journalistic investigative team
known non self-decriptively as "Lawless America").
Moreover, there was never at any time any forensic
evidence presented by prosecution which was
conclusive enough to convict according to normal
standards of finding of fact and law - and in fact
no forensic evidence at all that any crime had been
committed, except for the forced testimony of
the girl, who was about age 9 to 12 at the time she
was repeatedly dragged through the courts.
The false accusation stemmed from three facts: first,
the copycat response by the child-witness to the
false accusation which two friends of hers brought
against their stepfather, which can be classified as
normal "peer-group pressure". (A court document of July
19, 2011 in re Case 10-30443, Document 00511544570
in the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, on page 3
paragraph 1 describes this as a false accusation -
in the words of the COURT of venue.
The second fact is the self-admitted hatred of
the child witness of John Kinsel, who she believed
was making her mother unhappy. In other words,
the second motive was a childhood hero-fantasy
triggered by resentment which was groundless;
or perhaps based on the fact that John Kinsel
imposed normal verbal paternal discipline on
the half-sister of his own son.
The third fact is that another individual, in the
sworn testimony of the child witness after the
age of 18, accosted the child witness unlawfully
prior to the time of these accusations, twice.
The sworn testimony of the child witness clearly
implicates the Office of District Attorney in the
parish (county) in question, as suborning her
perjury on the witness stand, and forcing her
to testify. The District Attorney or prosecutor
in the case actually browbeat the child witness
to the point at which the child witness and the
prosecutor had a screaming match:
"I don't want to do any - I don't want to do
anymore. I'm tired. I'm scared.
I want to go home." (Page 10, court document
Q. Did you meet with that district attorney
prior to your testimony?
Q. And who was that district attorney, do
.Q. And when you met with him did you ever
say, John didn't do this, when you met with him?
A. Actually, the day that I was supposed
to testify I clammed up. I didn't want to
testify. I was scared. And I had called my
aunt numerous times from -- like, we went out to
lunch before I had to testify. And I had called my
Aunt ***** and told her that I didn't want to
do it, and there was a screaming match because
Q. A screaming match between who?
A. "D", my mom, my grandmother, Aunt
*****. And D. R. pretty much said that
he had put too much time into the trial, that,
you know, I -- he -- I'm trying to remember. He
-- pretty much he yelled at me and told me that
I had to go forward with it.
(Pages 13 - 14, sworn statement op. cit.
On page 12, it is also recorded that the DA's
office led the child witness on, by promising
her that she would not have to testify in court,
and that her taped testimony would be sufficient.
On page 5 of the court document, there is this
statement which highlights the importance of
this aspect of the case:
"The state trial judge concluded:
' I find that in no way can one convict
absent her testimony.' "
What prosecutors did in this case is to
suborn perjury, very coyly and very
knowingly in all likelihood.
The girl was a terrified child when she
testified in the proceedings which convicted
John Kinsel. But as an adult, when she was
living 1,000 miles away from her family,
she came forward voluntarily to recant (retract)
her childhood testimony. She spoke with John
Kinsel's attorney, and with the prosecutor's
office. If it is actually true that the prosecutor's
office didn't threaten her during the 1990s, they
certainly did in 2005 when she initially came
forward to recant her earlier testimony.
In a news article published on July 21, 2011
in the New Orleans Times Picayune, at
7:15 PM, in an article titled
Jefferson Parish *** abuse allegations recanted,
but convict remains in prison,
the following statement appears toward the
end of the article:
"She also said that in 2005 she went to the
Jefferson Parish district attorney's office and
told an investigator, who in turn told her she
could be charged with perjury."
This had a chilling effect on her recantation,
according to the article, however she did
go through with this three months later.
The Jefferson Parish DA's office has an illogical
standard of assessing credibility. A child witness
under their coercive influence has more credibility
with them (and with courts with which they are
associated, apparently) than an adult who freely
and of her own volition comes forward to testify.
For example, in the news article (op cit), First
Assistant District Attorney S. W. "said, 'This
office thoroughly reviewed the recantation,
which was made over nine years after the
victims's (sic) initial statement to the
police, and determined that the recantation
was completely unreliable.' "
This is not only defamatory toward the witness,
but very odd behavior by officials,
in view of the fact that the prosecutors in
this case seem to want to encourage a
child to testify against her will when she is
uncomfortable with what she is being coached
to say (when there is a clear contextual indication
that she is being forced to lie under oath by people
who should know better, as well as every clear and
consistent indication that she is a person of character
and integrity - and ANY PERSON OF COMMON
SENSE AND COMMON DECENCY would NEVER
browbeat a child to get something they want) yet
the same prosecutors and same prosecutorial office
put on a show of refusing to believe an adult who is
coming forth to set the record straight, even against
the prosecutorial threats levelled against her.
Also , the mother and grandfather of the child-witness
confronted the court during the initial proceedings
with evidence that the girl's testimony initially
gave an impossible rendition of fact which placed
John Kinsel at the home when he was miles away,
and which would have put him in plain view of eight
other witnesses who never saw any of the alleged acts
referred to in the girl's testimony.
Additionally, the witness came forward with the truth
even after the DA's office threatened her with
perjury charges. An adult cannot be arrested for
perjury for trying to SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT
over falsehoods that she uttered as a child prior
to the "age of reason". In fact, if anyone were to
be charged with perjury, those to be charged
would be in the DA's office itself, for trying to
prevent the record from being set straight, and
for intimidating the witness in the first place
at a time when she was obviously susceptible
to their tricks-of-the-trade.
The complete context of the interactions between
prosecutors and the child witness would indicate
clearly to any person of sound mind and reasonable
disposition that the child witness knew she was
being forced to lie in a way that was very damaging
and harmful, and which revolted her sensibilities.
For a child to lie under adult coercion or under peer-group
influence is not a reflection against that child, and not an
indication of a character flaw - and certainly not a crime
which can be held against a child at the time or subsequently.
(ANY prosecutor - even the most LYING one - should
know that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prosecute an adult
for something they did as a child prior to the age
of reason, especially if the now-adult is voluntarily
forthcoming in setting the record straight. To make
a false representation to a witness to intimidate her
amounts to a form of juridical racketeering which at
the very least begs questions of witness intimidation
on the part of the State.
This is especially true if all the malice in
the situation is on the part of those who
used the child's testimony in order to
knowingly prosecute an innocent in a case
so fundamentally weak from the beginning
that any prosecutor with a conscience would
have known that there was something wrong
with proceeding with the case, and would have
known that the only way they could win the case
is to twist the truth initially, and to eventually lie
and obstruct justice.
The girl was very brave to come forward as
an adult, to set the record straight even after
confronted with the further witness-tampering
of prosecutors. Any fair system of justice would
have rewarded her rather than threatened her;
indeed, the behavior of prosecutors in this case
will forever shatter whatever faith and trust she
might have ever developed in American justice.)
The child witness, now an obviously responsible adult,
is described as the "victim" by prosecutors and courts.
Yes she is - but not in the sense they wish to convey.
She is a victim of those very prosecutors and courts
who themselves used her callously and cynically to
further their own political ambitions and to subsequently
avoid payouts in a looming potential lawsuit.
The real issue here is not John Kinsel. In fact, it
is such common sense that he should be exonerated
and freed and compensated that we can say that this
is beyond the level of an issue at hand. It is, in the
vernacular of our times, a "no-brainer".
The real issue here is the behavior of prosecutors in
this particular case, and in general nationwide. These
prosecutors could not have been all that unknowing
in that they were victimizing not only the child witness,
but her entire family, the accused, and the community
at large - all to hang another scalp on the wall at the
end of the day. Now they are compounding their initial
offenses, smugly confident that they can prevail over
justice, when they are supposed to be a system of justice.
This prosecutorial malpractice is a nationwide epidemic in
the United States today.
Constant repetition of this pattern of prosecutorial
malpractice in the USA has damaged the reputation
and tarnished the prestige of the United States
beyond calculation or measure. This is the reason
why, when the US Government demands the
summary extradition of fugitives such as Roman
Polanski or Edward J. Snowden, foreign powers
are increasingly refusing these ordinary requests;
citing overwhelming factual evidence in their
counterarguments that few American political
fugitives and asylum-seekers would stand a chance
of receiving a fair trial or fair treatment in the
courts and prisons of the United States.
Instead of our Federal Government badgering
Russia and China back into the corner of the
Cold War over an issue of relatively minor importance,
or instead of threatening to devalue the currency of
the next possible safe haven, Ecuador (good luck
with that, Uncle Sam - the official currency of Ecuador
is the US Dollar), the President should turn over
a new leaf (as in the change dot org petition,
President Obama, Turn Over A New Leaf) forget
about playing world policeman, forget about
extraditing Edward J. Snowden, and stop pouring
hot coffee on top of spilled cream, when after all
it was the Federal Government which upset its own
applecart with its own Constitution-busting scheming,
and Edward J. Snowden who delivered Uncle Sam
a well-deserved slam.
Instead of digging itself in deeper, the US Government
needs to do the following, and act with FORESIGHT so
that it is better positioned for, and much more credible
in the context of, the NEXT extradition request, inter alia:
1) The President must grant the 52-part Pardon and Reprieve
in full, as in the form presented to the Hon. US. Representative
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on December 11, 2012 (and which
can be seen in somewhat abbreviated form on the Facebook
group enumerated 126111847544449). Whatever error
or risk can be cited in any Presidential granting of the
52-part Pardon and Reprieve, the error and risk to the
nation is obviously greater in any further refusal of the
President to acknowledge and grant the 52-part Pardon
and Reprieve as requested. This cluster pardon is designed
with the greatest good for the greatest number in mind.
It should be granted on an emergency basis, and financial
compensation in the form of emergency disaster relief
which is not an insult to the intelligence should be granted
to the victims of injustice and Government malpractice
listed here. This compensation should either be in the
full amounts requested, or in a form which is an
acceptable substitute therfor, or without prejudice.
This cluster pardon should be granted without delay
by the President, and in disregard of any advice to the
contrary by the US Department of Justice or the Office
of the Pardon Attorney. The justification for this request
has been clearly explained numerous times, and can be
explained again if need be.
2) The President must also grant a pardon, as described
above, to John Kinsel - and grant Federal witness protection
to the child witness in the above referenced case (and a
pre-emptive pardon to her as well, to prevent prosecutors
from coming after her in force or malice.) These conditions
should be granted immediately by the President, with no
objections overruling this.
3) Simultaneous with #1 and #2, the President
must appoint a new US Pardon Attorney - and that
should be none other than Governor Don Siegelman,
now in Federal prison himself on false charges which
were maliciously brought against him. The President
should also investigate the question of whether or not
Karl Rove may have been acting as an "eminence grise"
in the prosecution of Governor Siegelman, the investigation
to include a suspicious house fire and election-tampering
linked to the prosecution of the Governor. This is not to
cast aspersions on Mr. Rove; however, the question has
been asked with such persistence by petitioners to the
President on the change dot org petition "President Obama
please restore justice and pardon my dad", that these
questions ought to be settled for all time to come, rather
than set adrift. Perhaps the malicious prosecution of
Governor Siegelman was nothing more than an accident
of justice - but if it was only that, then the entire way we
handle justice in America should be thrown out. If this
was a political prosecution, then the prosecution of
Governor Siegelman constitutes racketeering by his
political opponents who chose to use the judiciary
for unfair political advantage including whistleblower-
silencing, and this circumstance - if finding of fact
warrants further investigation - cries out for closure.
4) The President must - in the context of undertaking
a rehabilitation of the credit and honor of the United
States - endorse and diplomatically grant credentials
to the Committee of 37 Peace Initiative leadership;
which can be found on Facebook under the group
enumerated as 280236092086133. The group, which
has been the object of computer silencing since
2010, should be granted diplomatic headquarters
in Washington, and its leaders granted diplomatic
immunity as well as the highest diplomatic rank,
together with an initial funding which shows that the
President takes peace as seriously as he takes war.
In these times, we can ask nothing less of the
President. Listening to the same advisors who
have maneuvered the President into the hole he
now finds himself in, is not a perpetual recipe for
success for this Administration. By broadening
the input of advice, we can hope to restore the
lost luster to this Administration and to the prestige
of the United States.
5) In view of the fact that so many people listed
on the 52-part Pardon and Reprieve are from
Pennsylvania, and many are affected by county
government in Philadelphia in some way, full
closure cannot come for the people listed in the
52-part Pardon and Reprieve without a further
measure of justice, which should necessarily
include the polygraphing and questioning of
all prosecutorial and court personnel involved in
the malicious prosecutions listed in the 52-part
Pardon and Reprieve in Pennsylvania, and if called
for in view of the President, in other States as
well. Any individual to be granted a pardon in this
context should be granted some form of Federal
emergency witness protection and immunity in
6) The President must initiate the program called
for in the change dot org petition named
President Obama Turn Over A New Leaf.
7) The President must endorse the change dot org
petition "Congress And State Governments Enact
The Freedom Restoration Amendment FRA".
Committee of 37 Peace Initiative
PO Box 877
Edgmont, PA 19028-0877